**3. Policy updates for LENR support**

The first policymaking opportunity resulting from LENR's changing landscape is revision of current policies for LENR support. Updates in these policies may best be accomplished in a framework of evidence-based policymaking (EBP) [30, 31]. The policy options (PO) are:

> of support is needed, perhaps comparable to hot fusion support over the past five decades. If LENR is indicated beyond a reasonable doubt, it may be appropriate to institute a crash program similar to the Manhattan Project, which resulted in the atomic bomb in World War II. In summary, it appears based on the level of evidence that LENR should at a minimum be reinstated and researched fully. It may in fact warrant investigation and development at a level similar to hot fusion research. **Figure 1** shows diagrammatically how the changing landscape of LENR leads to the need for policy updates for its support. The changing landscape began sometime after LENR's 1989 announcement and rejection (AR). The four lines of argument (4 L) for its improved prospects described above lead to a need for policy updates (NPU). The updates are founded on evidence-based policymaking (EBP). The five policy options (PO) are evaluated by the level of evidence (LOE) for LENR existence, leading to the appropriate policy responses (PR)—reinstate and research fully or provide more enhanced support.

> **Figure 1.** The changing landscape of LENR and resulting need for policy updates for its support. AR—Announcement and rejection (1989); 4 L—Four lines of argument; NPU—Need for policy updates; EBP—Evidence-based policymaking

Integrated Policymaking for Realizing Benefits and Mitigating Secondary Impacts of Cold Fusion

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78323

79

framework; PO—Five policy options; LOE—Level of evidence for LENR; PR—Policy responses (updates).

The second policymaking opportunity resulting from LENR's changing landscape is to address potential adverse secondary impacts with proactive planning. Broad deployment of LENR for energy supply may be expected to have major secondary impacts as a disruptive technology [32, 33]. Direct impacts are anticipated for all phases of the energy chain—supply, transport, storage, and consumption. Indirect impacts will be felt most by the components of society that are closely tied to the energy cycle, such as the affected sectors of the workforce

Technology Assessment (TA) is a mature and well-established method for addressing both direct and indirect secondary impacts and may readily be applied to cold fusion case [34, 35].

**4. Policies for mitigating adverse secondary impacts**

The stages of a TA application are generally as follows:

**1.** Identify impacts

**2.** Determined affected parties **3.** Develop mitigation strategy

and the communities that rely on energy activities (e.g., coal mining towns).


Selecting the alternative that best serves the public interest may be challenging because of the history and continuing rejection of LENR. Policymaking is further complicated by a need for improved reproducibility and a better explanation of the LENR phenomenon. To deal with these complications, LENR policy may be analyzed and established in terms of level of evidence (LOE) for its existence:


The LOE may be further interpreted for decisions on appropriate policy responses. At least a preponderance of evidence may reasonably be inferred from the large number researchers, the major body of evidence that has been accumulated, and the progress in achieving LENR explanation. Clear and convincing evidence is indicated by the emergence of LENR-dedicated research centers at several universities and by the significant number of proposed devices that purport to produce energy from LENR. When sufficient reproducibility and an adequate explanation are achieved, it may be asserted that the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate LENR beyond a reasonable doubt.

Policy responses to these proposed levels of evidence may also be suggested. If LENR is indicated with a preponderance of evidence, it should be fully reinstated and pursued with other emerging energy technologies. If there is clear and convincing evidence, a higher level Integrated Policymaking for Realizing Benefits and Mitigating Secondary Impacts of Cold Fusion http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78323 79

**Figure 1.** The changing landscape of LENR and resulting need for policy updates for its support. AR—Announcement and rejection (1989); 4 L—Four lines of argument; NPU—Need for policy updates; EBP—Evidence-based policymaking framework; PO—Five policy options; LOE—Level of evidence for LENR; PR—Policy responses (updates).

of support is needed, perhaps comparable to hot fusion support over the past five decades. If LENR is indicated beyond a reasonable doubt, it may be appropriate to institute a crash program similar to the Manhattan Project, which resulted in the atomic bomb in World War II.

In summary, it appears based on the level of evidence that LENR should at a minimum be reinstated and researched fully. It may in fact warrant investigation and development at a level similar to hot fusion research. **Figure 1** shows diagrammatically how the changing landscape of LENR leads to the need for policy updates for its support. The changing landscape began sometime after LENR's 1989 announcement and rejection (AR). The four lines of argument (4 L) for its improved prospects described above lead to a need for policy updates (NPU). The updates are founded on evidence-based policymaking (EBP). The five policy options (PO) are evaluated by the level of evidence (LOE) for LENR existence, leading to the appropriate policy responses (PR)—reinstate and research fully or provide more enhanced support.
